Entries categorized "Religion"

So Brewer vetoed the very bad no good Center for Arizona Policy bill, with the attention of the world on her, and of course we must all contact her and thank her, for Republicans must be praised effusively like good doggies who haven’t soiled the rug on those rare occasions they do the right thing. Personally, I’d be embarrassed if people’s expectations of me were that low but, then again, I’m just one of those adults in the room.

We really did dodge a bullet and at risk of sounding cynical, I’m glad the focus was on LGBT discrimination from a purely tactical standpoint in addition to the moral and human rights ones. Having it framed as targeting LGBT citizens was what brought the fiercely negative reaction in the media and the organized business community around to kill it. But make no mistake, this was also very much an anti-choice bill. CAP spokesman Aaron Baer cited Hobby Lobby in a TV interview as an example for why SB1062 was needed. Had contraception access been the main public focus – and I bet CAP wishes like hell it had – there’s a good chance the bill would have been quietly signed into law with nary a peep from the Chamber of Commerce crowd because sluts.

The obvious, and only, way to put the brakes on all this dumb shit is to elect more pro-choice Democrats.

Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) are having a bad week. First the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal from the state of Arizona of CAP's attempt to defund Planned Parenthood.

When I addressed the Legislature earlier this year, I made my priorities for this session abundantly clear...

Among them are passing a responsible budget that continues Arizona’s economic Comeback.

Additionally, our IMMEDIATE challenge is fixing a broken Child Protection system. Instead, this is the first policy bill to cross my desk.

Senate Bill 1062 does not address a specific and present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona. I have not heard of one example in Arizona where a business owner’s religious liberty has been violated.

The bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences.

After weighing all of the arguments, I vetoed Senate Bill 1062 moments ago.

Paul Waldman at The American Prospect has an insightful look at the Religious Liberty Campaign of the far-right launched in 2012. This is not a recent home-grown campaign coooked up at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) as our local media would have you believe. CAP is just one of many far-right religious organizations in a network of far-right religious organizations that is quite literally seeking to redefine the meaning of the First Amendment. Platinum-Level Citizenship:

[C]onservative Christians have mounted a little war of their own, fought in the courts and state legislatures. The enemies include not just the Obama administration but gay people, women who want control of their own bodies, and an evolving modern morality that has left them behind.

In the process, they have made a rather spectacular claim, though not explicitly. What they seek is nothing short of a different definition of American citizenship granted only to highly religious people, and highly religious Christians in particular. They are demanding that our laws stake out for them a kind of Citizenship Platinum, allowing them an exemption from any law or obligation they'd prefer to disregard.They would refashion the First Amendment in their image.

In the automated poll of 802 Republicans by Coleman Dahm, a Republican political consulting firm in Phoenix, 57.1 percent of respondents who were asked about the bill said they would like Brewer to veto it. Only 27.6 percent said they want her to sign SB1062. The remaining 15.3 percent had no opinion. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 4 percentage points.

Now, you are scratching your head and asking yourself, "How is it possible that 50 out of 53 Tea-Publicans in the Arizona legislature voted in favor of SB 1062, when a majority of even Republican primary voters want Governor Brewer to veto this bill? How is it possible these Tea-Publican legislators were elected to office when they are so out of touch with their own constituents?"

The dysfunctional Arizona GOP is once again allowing the disgraced and recalled former Senate President and current First Vice Chair of the Arizona Republican Party, Russell Pearce, to behave as if he is still "King Russell" (only in his own mind).

Today Russell Pearce chooses sides in the GOP primary for governor by advising the Christian Right, "If you call yourself a Christian, now is the time to stand and be counted in the name of God, country and family" -- and vote for Cap'n Al Melvin! From the Arizona Republic, Stand up, Christians:

If you call yourself a Christian, now is the time to stand and be counted in the name of God, country and family.

* * *

I was very disappointed to see some of our Republican candidates for governor lose their nerve when it came to Senate Bill 1062, which amends the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And now some state senators who voted for it want to hide and retract their vote for religious freedom.

There are a couple of legal analyses out today that attempt to make the point that SB 1062, the Religious Bigotry bill, is just not that big a deal. Wrong.

Howard Fischer has a report captioned in the Arizona Daily Star, Outcry over Arizona's SB 1062 overshadows bill's limited power. Howie relies on former ASU Law Professor Paul Bender, who comments “My summary is: It means almost nothing.”"[T]he main thing people miss is, there’s no right of action against a bigot in the first place,” Bender said. “The bigot doesn’t need this.”

Howie cites the "three part test" contained in SB 1062:

The law provides a three-part test that someone seeking to use the shield would have to establish in court.

First, the person’s action or refusal to act “is motivated by a religious belief.” Second, that belief must be “sincerely held.”

And third, there would need to be proof that being forced to do something “substantially burdens the exercise of the person’s religious beliefs.”

It is that last provision that prevents SB 1062 from being a catch-all for any religious claim.

But Howie never asks the all important question: "How has this three part test been used in real world practical application?" The only reporter today to ask the correct question is Megan Finnerty at the Arizona Republic (congrats Megan!) Can courts measure sincerity of faith?:

Our most deeply held convictions cannot be proved or disproved — the love we have for our children, the faith we have in our God, the respect we have for our parents — but SB 1062 would create an opportunity for a judge or a jury to ascertain and measure them.

Religious and legal experts disagree whether a judge or jury could know if a belief was sincere. They also don’t agree on what could be considered proof of such a belief. Words and actions only go so far.

About 250 cases have been brought since the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was put in place 20 years ago. Since then, 26 states have passed similar laws.

Judges have believed those who asserted a religious belief essentially because they said they held it, said Phoenix attorney Joe La Rue of the Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom, which co-wrote SB 1062.

“The courts know how to figure this out; they’ve done it,” La Rue said. “The court generally takes your word for it. You don’t presume a person is lying. You take them at their word unless the belief is so preposterous or so over the top that you couldn’t.”

You may recall that on the opening day of the legislative session this year, lobbyist Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), and her allies in the anti-choice, anti-constitutional rights for women movement suffered a major defeat when the U.S. Supreme Court denied Arizona's petition to the court requesting review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down the Arizona Tea-Publican legislature's 20-week abortion restrictions, Horne v. Isaacson (13-402).

On Monday, lobbyist Cathi Herrod and the CAP and its legal partner in the Christian Reconstructionist and Dominionist movement, the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), suffered another major defeat when the U.S. Supreme Court denied Arizona's petition to the court requesting review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Betlach v. Planned Parenthood (13-621) striking down the Arizona Tea-Publican legislature's attempt to defund Planned Parenthood. U.S. Supreme Court won’t revive Arizona abortion law:

The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to consider a move to resurrect an Arizona law that would have disqualified abortion providers from receiving public funding for other medical services.

The high court declined to hear Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne’s appeal of a lower court ruling that blocked the 2012 law.

In an open letter to residents beginning with “Dear Arizona,” the Star Trek actor sarcastically congratulated them for becoming the “first state actually to pass a bill permitting businesses–even those open to the public–to refuse to provide service to LGBT people based on an individual’s ‘sincerely held religious belief.’”

“This ‘turn away the gay’ bill enshrines discrimination into the law. Your taxi drivers can refuse to carry us. Your hotels can refuse to house us. And your restaurants can refuse to serve us,” Takei wrote.

* * *

“The law is breathtaking in its scope. It gives bigotry against us gays and lesbians a powerful and unprecedented weapon,” said Takei. “But your mean-spirited representatives and senators know this.” He added, “They also know that it is going to be struck down eventually by the courts. But they passed it anyway, just to make their hateful opinion of us crystal clear.”

Takei described his deep ties to the state; his husband Brad was born in Phoenix and the pair spends three weeks in Arizona every year on vacation to visit family and friends. But, Takei vowed to spend his time and tourist dollars elsewhere if this law gets the greenlight.

“If your Governor Jan Brewer signs this repugnant bill into law, make no mistake. We will not come. We will not spend. And we will urge everyone we know–from large corporations to small families on vacation–to boycott. Because you don’t deserve our dollars. Not one red cent.”

The Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) stealth candidate for governor of Arizona is the only candidate yet to take a position on the Religious Bigotry bill. Cathi Herrod from CAP is on State Treasurer Doug Ducey's campaign steering committee (he proudly displays her endorsement on his campaign web site).

So Ducey would veto this bill, but he would invite Cathi Herrod from his campaign (and others) to the table to write another bill? Way to straddle the fence there, Ducey. This is not a satisfactory answer.

And what is this "before this legislative session adjourns" parameter? What's the rush? Assuming that you are elected governor (God help us) you would not take office until January 2015. This is an empty promise on which you cannot deliver.

Friends and allies, please join us as we continue the momentum in our community. This is an official daily rally that will continue throughout the week! Lets increase the crowds every day and make a stance loud and clear.

Folks have the option to meet at Wingspan, 430 E. 7th Street, Tucson, at 5:00 p.m. to walk downtown for a 5:30 rally. For those who want to park and rally at Granada and Congress, folks could meet there at 5:30 p.m. with placards and horns!

We will continue the rally on the following dates starting at 5:00 p.m.:

Steve Kornacki was guest hosting for Rachel Maddow on Friday night, and led off the program with a long segment on the history of discrimination in Arizona, from the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday boycott, to the SB 1070 "illegally breathing while brown" boycott, to the latest religious bigotry bill from Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP). Kornacki suggested that Arizona could yet again be looking at another self-inflicted national boycott of the state, and possibly losing next January's Super Bowl, as previously happened in 1993.

The Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) stealth candidate for governor of Arizona is the only candidate yet to take a position on the Religious Bigotry bill. Cathi Herrod from CAP is on State Treasurer Doug Ducey's campaign steering committee (he proudly displays her endorsement on his campaign web site).

Most Republican gubernatorial candidates came out in opposition to SB1062. Secretary of State Ken Bennett was one of several who said the bill was unneeded to protect rights that already have sufficient protections.

“SB 1062 is an unnecessary measure to protect a God-given right already assured by the Constitution,” Bennett said in a press statement. “I strongly support religious freedom, but divisive measures such as these distract us from the most important challenges facing Arizona — jobs and economic development.”

Opponents of SB1062, the bill that could basically allow any form of discrimination so long as it was “sincerely religious” are planning to amass at the Capitol today to protest this outrage and encourage the Governor to veto it.

Several of these signs will be available at the rally, and some have already been spotted on shop windows throughout the state. (more after the jump)

During yesterday's House debate of the Religious Bigotry bill, Tea-Publicans made several references to the Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (13-354) case, which the U.S. Supreme Court will hear with the Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius (13-356) case in oral arguments scheduled for March 25, 2014.

Issue: Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden is the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest, allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by federal law, based on the religious objections of the corporation’s owners.

Tea-Publicans wielded "RFRA" like a sword in their arguments in favor of their Religious Bigotry bill.

Well, this amicus brief filed in these cases should cause their self-righteous hypocrite butts to pucker. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.com writes, Bold challenge to a law on religion:

Arguing that Congress has gone too far to push aside the Supreme Court’s constitutional role in religion cases, a loose coalition of child welfare organizations, survivors of clergy child sexual abuse, and non-believers has urged the Justices to strike down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act when it rules on a new dispute over the federal health care law.

The amicus brief, written by a prominent academic authority on religion and the law, Cardozo Law School’s Marci A. Hamilton, seeks to add a bold new dimension to the Court’s review of the Affordable Care Act’s “contraception mandate.”

The Tea-Publican controlled Arizona House passed the Religious Bigotry today, and conformed the bill to the Senate version passed yesterday. The bill will now be transmitted to Governor Jan Brewer. Contact Governor Brewer and tell her to veto this state-sanctioned discrimination bill, as she did last year. Arizona does not need another blacke eye like SB 1070.

The Legislature has given final approval to a controversial religion bill that’s spurring intense debate at the Legislature and across the country.

The legislation, written by the conservative advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy and the Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom, would allow individuals to use religious beliefs as a defense against a lawsuit.

Opponents have dubbed it the “right to discriminate” bill, and say it could prompt an economic backlash against the state, similar to what they say occurred when the state passed the controversial immigration law Senate Bill 1070 in 2010.

* * *

The bill will be sent to Gov. Jan Brewer, who has five days to sign it into law, veto the bill or do nothing and allow it to become law.

The House calendar for the Committee of the Whole (COW) today includes Rep. "Fast Eddie" Farnsworth's House version of the Religious Bigotry bill, HB 2153, passed by Tea-Publicans in the Senate on Wednesday. Business takes place this afternoon.

Where are the "Mythical Moderate Republicans" in the Republican Party establishment and the business community, in particular, the chamber organizations? The "Mythical Moderate Republican" Ethan Orr (R-Tucson) will have to vote on this bill. LD 9 will be watching, E.Orr.

Other bills on the COW Calendar in the House today of note:

HB 2012, Rep. John Kavanagh's "vexatious litigation" bill that somehow exempts the Arizona Legislature and the "Kochtopus" Death Star, the Goldwater Institute, who file more vexatious litigation than anyone else.

The AZ Senate debated SB1062, which would allow discrimination so long as it was for “sincerely held” religious reasons. Theocrats have tried, unsuccessfully, to pass similar laws in four other states but there’s a chance Governor Brewer could sign this one if it passes the House. The video isn’t up yet but the floor session was interesting.

Democrats tried valiantly to amend the bill on the floor, including one attempt where Sen. Ableser, hilariously, got the Republicans on record as supporting the rights of Satanists to do their thing. Democrats also cited several possible ways the law could be used to discriminate against LGBT and other groups, which Sen. Yarbrough (R) dismissed as “goofy hypotheticals”.

What century are we living in? For the second time (Governor Jan Brewer vetoed this bill last year) the Tea-Publicans in the Arizona Senate have passed the religious bigotry bill, which would allow individuals and businesses to deny public services based upon their "sincerely held religious beliefs." This is state-sanctioned segregation, pure and simple.

The Arizona Senate on Wednesday passed a bill backed by Republicans that expands the rights of people to assert their religious beliefs in refusing service to gays and others, a measure Democrats say will open the doors for discrimination and hurt the state economy.

The bill passed on a 17-13 party-line vote.

Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the bill that was pushed by social conservatives, saying it would allow discriminatory actions by businesses.

Right wingers are forever going on about how the sexual revolution has brought about the decline of civilization and has been simply terrible for women due to us no longer being able to use pregnancy to force reluctant men to shotgun marry us, among other things. But this Mother Jones report from Missoula, MT clearly illustrates how antediluvian attitudes toward sexuality and women held by the prosecutors there are causing rapists to go free, tormenting female victims, and causing some victims not to even bother trying to get justice.

The New York Times today has an update on the surprising move by the Tea-Publican controlled Senate in the Kansas legislature blocking the same model legislation for religious bigotry that is in the Arizona legislature. In Kansas, Right Joins Left to Halt Bill on Gays:

A bill that would have allowed individuals to refuse to provide business services to same-sex couples in Kansas because of religious beliefs met a surprising and quick end last week when conservative senators sided with liberal advocates in saying that the measure promoted discrimination.

The bill had passed the House, 72 to 49, last Wednesday and it appeared that it might also easily sail through the Senate. Both chambers are controlled by conservative Republicans who in recent years have passed some of the most conservative legislation in the country, whether on gun control, abortion rights or taxes.

Susan Wagle, a conservative Republican who is president of the Kansas Senate, raised opposition to the House measure, saying she had “grown concerned about the practical impact of the bill” and “my members don’t condone discrimination.”

Ms. Wagle was backed by Senator Jeff King, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who said he would not hold hearings on the House bill. Instead, Mr. King said, his committee would hold hearings on the broader topic of religious freedom in Kansas and explore whether the Legislature needed to take any further steps to shore up those protections.

Earlier this week the radical Tea-Publican House in the Kansas Legislature passed a religious bigotry bill nearly identical to the religious bigotry bill currently in the Arizona Legislature. These bills are almost certainly model legislation from the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) that I posted about earlier. The Arizona Republic:One step forward, two steps back on religious bigotry.

Supporters describe it as a religious freedom measure. Opponents contend it will encourage discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The bill would bar government sanctions when individuals, groups and businesses cite religious beliefs in refusing to recognize a marriage or civil union, or to provide goods, services, accommodations or employment benefits to a couple. Anti-discrimination lawsuits also would be barred. Individual workers and government employees also would get some protections.

* * *

The bill covers private and public employees. Government agencies would still be required to provide services, but individual clerks could refuse to serve same-sex couples based on their religious beliefs on marriage.

Businesses would still provide services, provided it was not unduly burdensome to do so.

* * *

The bill’s true purpose is to enable discrimination by government employees, said Thomas Witt, spokesman, for Equality Kansas.

In other words, a return to the "good ol' days" of state-sanctioned segregation -- this time against gays and lesbians.

A new global poll surveying the world’s Catholics finds that most of them don’t agree with the Church’s strict positions on issues of reproductive health. Specifically, most Catholics around the world actually support birth control and abortion rights — two “family values” issues that the Catholic hierarchy opposes.

There was a lot of hand-wringing among progressives/secular types before, during, and after “Science Guy” Bill Nye’s debate with Creation Museum founder Ken Ham on Tuesday night, which was held at the aforementioned “museum” in Kentucky. There is certainly a good argument for avoiding such debates entirely, as Richard Dawkins does. Eschewing them is probably a wise general rule for proponents of evolution since the debate format gives undeserved credibility to evidence-free assertions like Creationism. Also, debates are too often focused on performance over substance and “winners” and “losers”. For example, Mitt Romney “won” his first Presidential debate by boldly lying about his positions and catching President Obama off-guard. But, having watched it, I’m glad that Nye took the risk with this particular debate.

Humans come with a built-in ability to disregard or disbelieve facts because they’ve been presented by people with whom we disagree philosophically, as if anything that contradicts our preconceived notions of a person or situation or issue cannot be true.

The media used to fight such notions. Now, some of us encourage it.

If there is a danger in the media these days it is not that we are unfair, it’s that rather than challenge a reader’s or viewer’s willful ignorance we embolden it. We treat the news, which changes daily, like a religion, which is based on longstanding consistent unshakeable beliefs.

* * *

Our problem isn’t fairness.

Our problem is that too many people in the media are allowing, even urging, audiences to turn a blind eye to unpleasant facts.

The Arizona Daily Star's creative headline writer strikes again today. The headline in the Star reads Bill enhancing religious defense advances in Arizona Legislature. That's some spin there. These bills are about giving religious bigots a "get out of jail free" card to discriminate against anyone with whom they disagree supposedly based upon their "sincerely held religious beliefs" -- the new code word for "haters gotta hate."

[A] House panel voted 5-2 Tuesday to give individuals and the businesses they own more rights to refuse to provide services based on their religious beliefs.

The vote by the Government Committee came despite comments from several individuals that the measure would allow anyone to claim a “sincerely held” religious belief as an defense in discrimination lawsuits.

“This bill allows anyone who should normally comply with state or local laws that are neutral to claim that those laws burden their religious beliefs,” said Rep. Martin Quezada, D-Phoenix.

But Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, sponsor of HB 2153, said it protects business owners from being forced to do anything that would violate their faith, and Farnsworth lashed out at foes of the legislation for being intolerant of the religious views of others.

“This is pretty remarkable and ironic the screaming and yelling about tolerance apparently flows only one way,” he said. “They want the (religious) tolerance simply to be I'm going to tolerate their opinion and my opinion counts for nothing.”

Why do the very people who believe an individual, association, partnership, corporation, trust, foundation or other legal entity (because "corporations are people my friend") possess a religious liberty to not comply with state and federal anti-discrimination laws simply by invoking the "magic words" that it is "my sincerely held religious belief" to discriminate against gays -- or women, or other religious faiths, or people of color, or other nationalities, etc.

. . . are the very same people who do not believe in the religious liberty or moral conscience choice of a woman to make medical decisions in consultation with her doctor regarding her own body for contraception and abortion? Shouldn't a woman be allowed to invoke her "sincerely held religious belief" in exercising her constitutional rights to contraception and abortion by logical extension of this argument?

Maybe someone should try to get an answer to this moral dilemna from Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP) on Tuesday when she is expected to testify in favor of Rep. "Fast Eddie" Farnsworth's House version of the Religious Bigotry bill, HB 2153 (.pdf), in the Committee on Government, at 2:00 p.m. in House Hearing Room 4.

This bill is a "get out of jail free card" for compliance with the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Arizona Civil Rights Act, as amended. Since religion is defined under his bill as an individual's "sincerely held religious beliefs" rather than that of a religious institution -- and the government cannot discriminate among religious beliefs under the First Amendment -- an individual's "sincerely held religious beliefs" that he or she may discriminate against persons of other religious faiths, or another race, ethnic origin, or sex would be permissible. Such a "get out of jail free card" for compliance with laws based upon the mere assertion of "sincerely held religious beliefs" leads to anarchy.

Just hours before a joint session of Congress for President Obama's State of the Union Address last night, the Tea-Publican House voted on one of its top legislative priorities for this year: HR 7, which they misleadingly label the “No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act” (the Hyde Amendment has banned federal funds for abortions since 1976), and that opponents call the "Rape Audit Bill," for justifiable reason.

In addition to preventing low-income women from using their Medicaid coverage to access abortion, the “No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act,” or HR 7, could also have dramatic implications for the tax code and the private insurance market. One of its most controversial provisions could actually require the Internal Revenue Service to conduct audits of rape victims.

Why? Because HR 7 eliminates medical-expense deductions for abortion care, essentially raising taxes on the women who opt to have an abortion. Like many abortion restrictions, this provision includes an exemption for victims of rape and incest, as well as women who encounter life-threatening complications from their pregnancies. But in order to enforce those exceptions, the IRS would have to verify that the women who are claiming a medical-expense deduction for an abortion fall into one of those three categories, to ensure they’re not committing tax fraud.

Essentially, that would empower the government agency to have the final say over what “counts” as a sexual assault or a life-threatening situation. And that, in turn, would force victims to prove their case.

“Imagine having to recount a sexual assault — a horrifyingly painful, personal experience — to a tax collector,” NARAL Pro-Choice America says in an action alert to its members to encourage them to mobilize against HR 7. “An anti-choice bill in Congress would do just that. It could force sexual assault survivors who access abortion care to prove the assault occurred.”

The House vote was 227 to 188, mainly along party lines. Final Vote. Six Democrats voted yes, only one Republican voted no, and another voted present. There were 15 members of Congress not voting.

This has been some week in the Arizona GOP's war on democracy, hasn't it?

On Thursday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman "Fast Eddie" Farnsworth's (R-Gilbert) bill, HB 2196 (.pdf), to repeal the GOP Voter Suppression Act, HB 2305, and to deny the citizens of Arizona their constitutional right to vote on a citizens referred referendum, was pulled after angry citizens and the media showed up at the hearing. More than 100,000 Arizonans signed the petitions for a "citizens veto" of the GOP Voter Suppression Act, exercising their constitutional right under the Arizona Constitution to vote to veto the legislature's anti-democratic measure. No matter.

The Arizona GOP's plan is to repeal HB 2305, and to pass the separate provisions for voter suppression in the bill as separate bills to make another citizens referendum virtually impossible, and to get their way by "skullduggery," as Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts called it. Are legislators plotting end run around voters in election-law referendum?" "Fast Eddie" promises to bring his bill back up for a hearing, possibly as early as this week.

On Friday, the Arizona GOP was in U.S. District Court arguing to a three judge panel of federal judges that you, the voters of Arizona, by enacting a citizens referred initiative to create the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), Prop. 106 (2000), violated their federal constitutional right to gerrymander congressional districts in favor of GOP candidates. (Where are the Neo-Confederate "states' rights" federal "guvmint" haters now?) As I explained, their legal argument is entirely without merit. Arizona Legislature v. the AIRC court hearing this Friday. This is one of those frivolous "junk lawsuits" you hear about.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a temporary injunction on New Years' Eve in the case of Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius, to an objection by an order of Catholic nuns who minister to the elderly that they do not want to sign EBSA Form 700 claiming an exemption for a religious organization, which would allow their employee health insurance provider to provide contraception coverage under the ACA "contraception mandate" to their employees.

The Little Sisters' health plan administrator, Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust, also objected to the “contraceptive mandate” and said it would not incorporate it in the Little Sisters plan. Federal law exempts “church plans” from the ACA mandate, so there will be no contraception coverage in the health care plan.

The Little Sisters are objecting to completing paperwork.

The theory goes that even filing the EBSA Form 700 would make the Little Sisters a part of the scheme, and thus draw them into support for abortions or abortion-related services. (Somehow they equate contraception with abortion; not all contraception is an aborticide). It is an absolutist extreme position.

It is an extreme position not shared by American Catholics. Most American Catholics don’t consider birth control to be a threat to their religious belief. In fact, 82 percent of Catholics say contraception is “morally acceptable,” according to a Gallup poll from May 2012. Catholic support for birth control is a mere 8 points below the 90 percent of non-Catholic Americans who have no moral objections to birth control.

I cleared my schedule so I could watch the House Judiciary Committee debate two controversial bills this morning, but after a late start it was announced that the bills had been pulled from the agenda to "work on language." I hate when that happens!

-- House Judiciary Committee Chairman "Fast Eddie" Farnsworth's (R-Gilbert) bill, HB 2196 (.pdf), to repeal the GOP Voter Suppression Act, HB 2305, and to deny the citizens of Arizona their constitutional right to vote on a citizens referred referendum (and to clear the way for the GOP to enact other voter suppression bills this session).

-- House Judiciary Committee Chairman "Fast Eddie" Farnsworth's (R-Gilbert) bill, HB 2153 (.pdf), the House version of Sen. Steve Yarbrough's (R-Chandler) religious bigotry bill, SB 1062 (.pdf), for Mullah Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), which would effectively give a license to any individual -- and to any corporation, association, foundation or other fictional legal entity ("corporations are people my friend") -- the right to discriminate against others simply by invoking the "magic words" that it is "my sincerely held religious beliefs." This is an attempt to eviscerate state and federal civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination. Ostensibly about "hatin' on the gays," Sen. Yarbrough acknowledged there may be individuals who have religious beliefs about unmarried women, or even employing people who do not share their same beliefs.

On the opening day of the Arizona Legislature this year, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Arizona's appeal from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals striking down the legislature's 20-week abortion ban as unconstitutional. The source of this anti-choice bill, Mullah Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), vowed to retaliate against Arizona women. Arizona cannot enforce abortion ban, Supreme Court rules:

Herrod signaled that her organization, which has been at the forefront of pushing lawmakers here to enact more restrictions on abortion, is not done yet.

"We are already taking the next steps to protect women and their pre-born children from the dangerous and deadly practices of the abortion industry," she said, promising details in the coming days.

One of CAP's foot soldiers in the Arizona Legislature, Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Peoria), is the sponsor of HB 2284 (.pdf) which would, among other provisions, allow for the Christian Taliban to make unannounced "inspections" of abortion clinics to harass and intimidate abortion service providers and their patients. The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports, Anti-abortion bill would permit unannounced inspections of clinics:

A Peoria lawmaker has introduced an anti-abortion bill that would allow health inspectors to examine clinics unannounced. The bill also would make it a crime to circumvent the state’s parental consent law.

The bill, HB 2284, introduced Thursday by Rep. Debbie Lesko, also requires abortion clinics to report whether an infant survived a procedure and what steps doctors took to save it.

Last November the state of Arizona petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review of a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down the Arizona legislature's attempt to defund Planned Parenthood of Arizona as a family planning service under Medicaid (AHCCCS) on the specious argument that it also separately provides for abortion services. Providing funding to the family planning services side of Planned Parenthood allegedly "indirectly" subsidizes the separately maintained and accounted for abortion services of Planned Parenthood.

State and federal law have long prohibited public funding of abortions, hence the separation of services and separate accounting by Planned Parenthood. Should the state of Arizona succeed on its specious claim, many areas of the state would lose family planning services because Planned Parenthood is the only provider in those areas. Planned Parenthood also provides wellness services for such things as cancer screening for cervical and breast cancers, and a host of other services. In effect, the Arizona legislature, at the behest of Mullah Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), would deny low income Arizona women access to basic health care and family planning services.

During a debate over an anti-abortion bill currently advancing in Congress, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) suggested that Republicans support restricting access to abortion because it will ultimately benefit the economy if women have more children. Goodlatte noted that carrying pregnancies to term “very much promotes job creation.”

Goodlatte made the comments while presiding over a committee mark-up of the “No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act,” or HR 7, on Wednesday afternoon. That legislation would dramatically restrict women’s access to affordable abortion care by imposing restrictions on insurance coverage and tax credits for the procedure. Goodlatte, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, advanced HR 7 by scheduling it for a full committee mark-up on Wednesday.

Explaining his support for the measure, Goodlatte [said]:

“I would suggest that it is very much the case that those of us in the majority support this legislation because it is the morally right thing to do but it is also very very true that having a growing population and having new children brought into the world is not harmful to job creation,” he said. “It very much promotes job creation for all the care and services and so on that need to be provided by a lot of people to raise children.”

Now, if you have the reasoning and arithmetic skills of a five year old, it would seem absurd to think the human population, having gone from 1.5 billion worldwide in 1900 to over 7 billion now, is in the throes of precipitous demographic doom but that is exactly what anti-choicers would have you believe.

Earlier this week I posted that Religious bigotry rears its ugly head in the Arizona Legislature. Arizona's most corrupt state senator, Steve Yarbrough (R-Chandler), is carrying this religious bigotry bill, SB 1062 (.pdf), for Mullah Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP). While the bill is ostensibly about "hatin' on the gays," Yarbrough "acknowledged there may be individuals who have religious beliefs about unmarried women, or even employing people who do not share their same beliefs."

Got that? If you are not one of the Christian Reconstructionists and Dominionists of the CAP who want to impose a Christian theocracy in the United States -- which would include Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and the hundreds of other religious beliefs and sects, and non-believers alike, all of whom are protected by the First Amendment from state-sanctioned establishment of religion or interference with the free exercise of their religion -- this bill would grant a "get out of jail free card" for compliance with civil rights laws based upon the mere assertion of "sincerely held religious beliefs," not just for a religious institution, but for individuals and corporations or any business (because "corporations are people my friend").

Apparently they never learned that "hate is not a Christian value." All the CAP does is hate.

As I pointed out, "This is a slippery slope which can easily be abused to discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, sex and religion simply by invoking the "magic words" that it is "my sincerely held religious beliefs."" It is a bald-faced attempt to eviscerate the civil rights acts hiding behind the gossamer thin veneer of "religious freedom" to be a discriminatory bigot. A nearly identical bill passed the Arizona Legislature last year but was vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer.

A Senate panel voted Thursday to strengthen laws allowing people to bring weapons into public buildings if there’s not an easy and immediate way to check them.

Dave Kopp, lobbyist for the Arizona Citizens Defense League, said a 2006 law says individuals are permitted to arm themselves. He said that law allows those operating public buildings to tell people their weapons are not welcome only if there are convenient lockers available .

He said some government agencies claim having lockers near entrances would be too costly. Kopp said that puts those who refuse to disarm themselves at risk of being arrested on a charge of misconduct with a weapon. SB 1063 (.pdf) would end that risk.

“The only thing the bill changes is it basically says if you are not providing the required storage that’s been required since 2006, then folks can just walk on in,’’ Kopp said.

Back in early December, POLITICOTiger Beat on The Potomac reported that "The National Republican Congressional Committee wants to make sure there are no Todd Akin-style gaffes next year, so it’s meeting with top aides of sitting Republicans to teach them what to say — or not to say — on the trail, especially when their boss is running against a woman." GOP men tutored in running against women.

The idea was so comical that Gary Trudeau featured it in his Doonesbury comic strip in December.

Apparenlty the NRCC forgot to school their male members of Congress that they should also not say stupid things in open committee hearings with C-Span cameras rolling.

During a debate over an anti-abortion bill currently advancing in Congress, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) suggested that Republicans support restricting access to abortion because it will ultimately benefit the economy if women have more children. Goodlatte noted that carrying pregnancies to term “very much promotes job creation.”

A couple of early updates from the new session of the legislative session:

While some of the names have changed, some things haven't changed at the Capitol. Like the arrogance and culture of entitlement among the majority caucus.

Exhibit 1: They're proposing to pay any legislators, current and past, who claim to have incurred legal costs from lawsuits against their infamous anti-immigrant measure, SB1070. (Arizona Capitol Times, subscription required)

Something similar to this has been proposed before this week; after former senator Russell Pearce was recalled. There was a move to reimburse him for the costs of his campaign in (unsuccessful) defense of him. That move didn't go far, not least because he didn't actually pay for his defense - contributors did.

Pearce's acolytes in the lege may have failed the first time, but they haven't stopped looking for ways to funnel taxpayer money to him.

Exhibit 2: One state legislator, Sen. Don Shooter (R-Yuma), in response to proposals to end the practice of legislators accepting tickets to sporting events from lobbyists, proclaimed that unless legislators get a pay raise he's going to keep accepting bribes tickets.

For the record: I actually agree with Shooter on one thing - legislative pay should be raised. Most would-be public servants are honest and honorable people. However, they also have families to support and cannot do that on the current legislative salary of $24K per year.

So, instead of people who want to work for the best interests of their constituents and the state, Arizona ends up with the majority of the legislature is made up of whackjobs and grifters.

I'll leave it to readers to determine for themselves which category (or both, they're not mutually exclusive) that Shooter fits in.

In any event, he knew what the pay level for legislators was *before* he took his oath of office. While I think that legislative pay is too low, that doesn't justify corruption. He gets absolutely no sympathy on this.

Earlier this month I told you about the bill by Rep. Steve Montenegro (R-Litchfield Park) to make it illegal for government to “require a minister to solemnize a marriage inconsistent with a minister's sincerely held religious beliefs.” A solution in search of a non-existent problem. As I said at the time:

I commend Rep. Montenegro for trying to keep his measure as narrow as possible. The New Mexico wedding photographer case he cites is an example of an individual claiming an overly broad definition of "religious liberty" to essentially assert a license to discriminate against members of the public. This is a slippery slope which can easily be abused to discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, sex and religion simply by invoking the "magic words" that it is "my sincerely held religious beliefs." If this wedding photographer had refused services to African-Americans or Jews, or to Arab-Americans and Muslims instead of "the gays," he would have been rightly condemned as a bigot. A "get out of jail free card" for compliance with laws based upon the mere assertion of "sincerely held religious beliefs" leads to anarchy.

For those of you heading up to the Capitol this morning for the Stand With Arizona Women rally, there is breaking news from the U.S. Supreme Court. Arizona's petition to the court requesting review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down the Arizona Tea-Publican legislature's 20-week abortion restrictions, Horne v. Isaacson (13-402), has been DENIED. The Order list is Here.

The Supreme Court on Monday chose to bypass the first case to reach it testing a new round of state laws restricting abortion rights. Without comment and without any noted dissents, the Court refused to hear an Arizona case involving a ban on abortions at 20 weeks of pregnancy. The case was Horne v. Isaacson (13-402).

Arizona's legislative session opens today with a major defeat for Mullah Cathi Herrod and her Christian Taliban at the Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), and her allies in the anti-choice, anti-constitutional rights for women movement. It is a major victory for women's rights.

Let's make this the first in a series of victories for women's rights this year.

TEMPE, AZ - A sexual education presentation is causing lots of controversy in Tempe and has even sparked threats of a lawsuit.

Planned Parenthood will be making their presentation Tuesday in front of officials from the Tempe Union High School District's Sexual Education Curriculum Committee.

It's not clear yet exactly what will be said during the presentation, but a group calling themselves the Alliance Defending Freedom wrote a letter to Tempe officials saying Planned Parenthood's presentation could be illegal under Arizona law.

Montenegro acknowledged there is currently no danger of such a mandate.

* * *

Montenegro said he is trying to keep his own measure as narrow as possible.

For example, it spells out that the protections against having to recognize a same-sex marriage does not extend to hospitals, hotels, restaurants, businesses or other places of public accommodation. That is designed from it becoming a weapon in legal fights similar to one in New Mexico where that state's high court ruled that a commercial wedding photographer could not refuse to take pictures of a same-sex wedding.

“We're not trying to go out and pick a fight,” Montenegro said. He said nothing in the legislation would bar a pastor, minister, rabbi or other religious leader from voluntarily presiding over a same-sex marriage, though under current Arizona law it would not be recognized by the state.

Montenegro conceded that the entire effort could prove meaningless even if he gets it approved by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Jan Brewer: A court could still rule the measure unconstitutional. But Montenegro said he still thinks the effort is worthwhile.

“As representatives of the people here in Arizona, we want to make sure we're doing our part to protect the religious freedoms of pastors, ministers, and the churches,” he said.

What made 2010 such a boom year for abortion restrictions? It’s hard to pinpoint a particular reason, but a few factors do stand out. First, Republicans took control of lots of state legislatures in the 2010 midterm elections, allowing them to pass more restrictions than was politically feasible in the past. The Affordable Care Act also ignited a fight over abortion policy, particularly whether federal funds would help pay for abortions (when Americans used their tax subsidies to purchase health insurance coverage). That fight spilled over to state legislatures – the ones that Republicans had recently come to control – and many passed laws restricting insurance coverage of abortion.

Lastly, the focus on late-term abortion, with the 20-week abortion bans, likely played a role, too. As the Guttmacher Institute reports, those bans proliferated quickly, after Nebraska passed the first such law back in 2010. While the majority of Americans do support legal abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy, support for abortion rights falls significantly when you get into second and third trimester terminations. That drop-off in public support could have laid the groundwork for the success of the late-term restrictions.

On New Year's Eve, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor gave respondents until Friday to file a response to petitions filed by the state of Utah in the marriage equality case, and from the Little Sisters of the Poor in the contraceptive coverage mandate of "ObamaCare" case from Colorado. Those responses have now been filed.

The Obama administration told the Supreme Court on Friday that a group of Colorado nuns does not need a special injunction against the new health-care’s law provision providing contraceptive coverage for employees because the group can easily exempt itself from the requirement.

The government asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor to lift the temporary injunction she issued New Year’s Eve for the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Colorado nonprofit organization that provides services to the elderly. The Affordable Care Act, new provisions of which went into effect Jan. 1, requires employers who provide insurance coverage to include contraceptive services.

But nonprofit organizations such as the nuns’ may opt out of the requirement simply by certifying that they have religious objections, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. wrote in a response to Sotomayor filed Friday morning.

The “employer-applicants here are eligible for religious accommodations set out in the regulations that exempt them from any requirement ‘to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for contraceptive coverage,’ ” Verrilli wrote.

“They need only self-certify that they are non-profit organizations that hold themselves out as religious and have religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services.”

Just before presiding over the Times Square countdown on New Year’s Eve, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor granted a temporary injunction to a handful of Catholic nonprofit groups, including the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged. They say that the Obama administration’s accommodation on birth control coverage still violates their religious liberty. Sotomayor asked the government to respond by Friday. After that, the Justice, who oversees the circuit where the case was first filed, will either issue a further ruling herself or refer it to the full court.

The decision applies only to the organizations in question and doesn’t affect the broader contraceptive coverage regulations in the Affordable Care Act, which have already gone into effect for millions of American women. But it may signal that the broader court is receptive to arguments that filling out a form for an employee to get birth control directly from an insurer is a substantial burden on religion.

Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and the lead attorney on the case, told msnbc of his clients, “They’re saying, ‘I can’t fill out permission slips for abortion, sterilization or contraception under any circumstances.’” (The mandate does not cover abortion, but some Catholic and evangelical groups have contended that the scientifically undocumented possibility the IUD and emergency contraception will disrupt the implantation of a fertilized egg is the same as abortion.)

The most fascinating political development of 2013 to observe was the rise of the progressive "Moral Mondays" movement in North Carolina in response to the radicalized extremist Tea-Publican controlled state legislature.

"Moral Mondays" engages in civil disobedience protests, organized in part by local religious leaders including William Barber, head of the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP. Members of the protest movement meet every Monday to protest an action by the North Carolina legislature and then enter the legislature building. Once they enter, a number are peacefully arrested each Monday.

The Moral Monday protests that rocked North Carolina (and led to hundreds of arrests each Monday) last year may be coming to Georgia.

A group called Moral Monday Georgia (moralmondayga.org) has quietly begun gathering supporters and planning organizing meetings this month. They plan one of the first actions on the Jan. 13, the first Monday of the session, and the platform focuses on a call to expand Medicaid, restore funding to public schools and raising the minimum wage.

The Moral Monday movement to protest changes in North Carolina public policy that organizers believe are extreme and hurt the state won’t abate in 2014 and will spread to other states, its leader said.

Activists from a dozen states attended a meeting in Raleigh earlier this month to learn how to hold similar protests in their states.

Between the "War on Christmas" and the accusations that Pope Francis is a Marxist, some people can't seem to make up their mind. Who better to wage a war on Christmas than the people who want the Pope to be more of a capitalist! Seems like the most holy Christmas ever was one without rampant consumerism. (Remember, Joseph and Mary had the nerve to stay in a place for free on Christmas Eve-- sounds like a couple of moochers to me!)

Amidst the imagined attacks on Christmas, Rush Limbaugh and some Fox News characters accused Pope Francis of being Marxist after he said some critical words about our economic system. Never mind that Pope Benedict had similar complaints. Everything has been coming up Pope Francis lately, who was picked as Time's "Person of the Year" and was featured on the cover of the New Yorker. Having been raised Catholic and having done plenty of cartoons about the scandals in the Catholic Church, I'm happy that we're talking again about things like helping the poor, imagine that.

* * *

As usual, you can also find more links to news stories behind this cartoon on my website.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear religious challenges to the requirement that employers provide health insurance for their workers that includes birth control and related medical services. The Court said it would decide constitutional issues, as well as claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog.com reports, Court to rule on birth-control mandate (UPDATED):

The Court granted review of a government case (Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores) and a private business case (Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius). Taking the Conestoga plea brought before the Court the claim that both religious owners of a business and the business itself have religious freedom rights, based on both the First Amendment and RFRA. The Hobby Lobby case was keyed to rights under RFRA.

* * *

The Court did not expedite the briefing schedules for the new cases, so presumably they will be heard in March. Moreover, the Court has already released its argument schedule for all sittings through the February session.

Under the orders the Court issued in the health care cases, the Justices are not being asked to strike down the requirement that employers provide a full range of pregnancy-related health care under their employees’ health insurance plans. In that sense, these cases are different from the Court’s first rulings on the ACA two years ago, when it upheld a penalty for an individual who refused to obtain health insurance at all and nullified a requirement that states must broadly expand their Medicare program of health care coverage for the poor.

This time, the Court will be focusing only on whether the pregnancy-related care coverage can be enforced against profit-making companies — or their individual owners, when that is a very small group — when the coverage contradicts privately held religious beliefs.

Just days before the U.S. celebrates the secular capitalist greed fest of Black Friday, word comes from Rome that the new Pope is none too happy about our consumerism. Pope denounces economic gap, consumerism (Pope Francis denounces ‘trickle-down’ economic theories in critique of inequality):

Pope Francis on Tuesday sharply criticized growing economic inequality and unfettered markets in a lengthy paper outlining a populist philosophy that he says will guide his papacy as he pushes the Catholic Church to reach out more, particularly to the disenfranchised.

Using sharply worded phrases, Francis decried an “idolatry of money” and warned it would lead to “a new tyranny.”And he invoked language with particular resonance in the United States, attacking an economic theory that discourages taxation and regulation and which most affiliate with conservatives.

“Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world,” Francis wrote in the papal statement. “This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”

“Meanwhile,” he added, “the excluded are still waiting.”

While Francis has raised concerns before about the growing gap between the wealthy and poor since becoming pontiff in March, his direct reference to “trickle-down” economic theory in the English translation of his 50,000-word statement was striking.

Arizona's Tea-Publican controlled legislature is unique: it is the only legislature heartless enough to deny health care coverage to poor children eligible for the S-CHIP ("Kidscare") program. This is a notch group of children whose parent(s) do not qualify for Medicaid (AHCCCS) health insurance, but otherwise would qualify for Kidscare. Enrollment in the KidsCare program has been frozen since January 1, 2010 due to lack of funding for the program. Our Tea-Publican controlled legislature has shown no interst in restoring funding to the Kidscare program.

Nationally the number of children without health insurance dropped between 2009 and 2011, but not in Arizona, a new study says.

Arizona has one of the worst rates of uninsured children in the country, says the report, released Tuesday by Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families.

Nearly 210,000 children in Arizona do not have health insurance, which amounts to 13 percent of the state's children - only Texas and Nevada had worse rates, the researchers found. And unlike most of the country, the rate here got worse between 2009 and 2011, the study shows.

Tip Jar

Mo Udall says, "I have learned the difference between a cactus and a caucus. On a cactus, the pricks are on the outside." Donate to BlogForArizona to help us keep an eye on the pricks inside the GOP caucuses controlling Arizona's politics. Or you could buy some of our keen swag."
Please consider making a monthly pledge:

Things We Love

Fair Use Info

Please link to this site. Deep linking as well as landing page links are encouraged and appreciated. Here are site graphics you can use for graphic links.

BforAZ Merchandise:

Purchase of goods via or donations to this site do not constitute a donation to any political candidate or party and are not tax deductible. This site is run by volunteers and is not authorized by any political campaign, party, or PAC.

Opinions expressed are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the opinions or positions of any other organization, entity, or officials.